The brand new “Frank House” at the end of Penarth’s exclusive Park Road is the subject of a Vale Council Enforcement Investigation

A newly-built detached three-storey super-luxury home –  built on Penarth’s exclusive Park Road – is now the subject of a Planning Enforcement Investigation by the Vale of Glamorgan Council .

The new flat-roofed house – called “Frank House”–  has been built on the site of what had been a disused former private swimming pool of the Victorian mansion –  No 10 Park Road. The new house stands within the Penarth Conservation Area and is adjacent to – and can be seen from – Alexandra Park.

The approved plans for the side of the house which looks out towards the east with PDN annotations.

The final version of the approved plans show that the side of the house facing east ( and looking out towards Penarth Esplanade and the sea)  was designed to have a 2nd-floor single balcony running along its length – protected by a glass balustrade.

However the actual built house has not just a glass balustrade at 2nd-floor level –   (as per the approved plans) – but a SECOND glass balustrade at an even higher level –  located above it at the edge of the flat roof of the property .

The rooftop glass balcony – now being investigated – stands on a level above the authorised 2nd floor glass balcony

The roof-top glass balustrade does not appear to have been on the approved plans for the development

It appears that this  second “roof-top” balustrade was not included in the drawings approved by the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council describes  the alleged planning breach as an “unauthorised development”    and has initiated an Enforcement Investigation which is currently under way.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address newsnet@sky.com. Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Frankly Unacceptable says:

    Is this what can be seen from the path that runs up from the seafront to Plymouth Road?
    In darkness the other night I spotted what appeared to be a 1970s rehabilitation facility.
    Lord knows what it looks like in daylight.
    What a state this town is in.

  2. Tired now says:

    wouldn’t it be novel and ‘cutting edge’ if just for once a new ‘architect designed’ building didn’t follow the same depressing predictability?
    pale smooth render, bit o’ wood cladding, bit o’ slate, glass balcony and bob’s your uncle

  3. Peter D says:

    Why hasn’t the builder taken his shed away?

  4. Mike Miggs says:

    Looks like a 1940’s gun emplacement to me.

  5. Frank Lloyd Wright says:

    Looks great, i hope it stays.

  6. Jed says:

    It’s horrile, clearly exists only to improve ‘value’ via a ‘sea view’ and is unauthorised …. it has to be torn down and the original planning permission revoked, surely?

    Amazing what sort of folk live in ‘excludive’ areas !

    • Simon says:

      I expect there’ll be one of those ‘investigations’ – same as for the bats over Northcliffe way or the decaying mansions on Bridgeman Road – and we will never hear anything again.
      Wasn’t there a minor to-do about a house on Marine Parade?
      Nothing more said about that either.

    • Lou says:

      Do you know anything about the “folk” that live there?

  7. Frank Lloyd Wrong says:

    what’s the point of a “conservation area” in Penarth when the Vale will pass anything to get the planning cash and council tax?

  8. Paul Adsett says:

    What a hideous looking building, totally out of place in this location (or anywhere else for that matter!). Who on earth approved of this monstrosity? Tear the whole thing down I say!
    Penarth seems to be tearing down some of its most beautiful homes. Why?

  9. Nick Carroll says:

    Enforcement can only be progressed if there is demonstrable harm from the top balcony.
    It does not review the principle of development again.

  10. Lou says:

    Putting planning issues to one side, a lot of people here making rude and unnecessary comments about someone’s home. The sort of comments which are par for the course unfortunately

  11. Peter Church says:

    If I see another “architect designed house” with glass balustrades I will vomit.
    Who are they kidding, it will look like “wood chip wallpaper” in 10 years.

  12. Scootergirl says:

    Permission for the ‘development’ of this property should never have been given for this type of design in this part of Penarth (being a conservation area) in the first place. And that’s without the digression of the said glass balustrades. What is the point of having a planning department in Penarth Council, as they seem to allow anything and everything, no matter what.
    Let’s hope they make the right decision and Not allow retrospective permission to approve this monstrosity.

    • Harry Parfitt says:

      There is no planning department in Penarth Council. The planning authority is the Vale of Glamorgan.

      • Christopher David says:

        “Penarth Town Council is a statutory consultee and is notified and invited to submit observations on all planning applications within the boundary of Penarth.
        The Town Council has a scheme of officer delegation and observations on the more routine applications are determined by the Town Clerk and reported to the Town Council’s Environment, Planning & Development Committee.
        Routine applications that may raise cause for concern are referred by the Town Clerk to the Committee along with applications for redevelopment, new build, large developments, and sites of interest or change of use”. Carefully worded way of saying “chocolate pokers”. The VoG makes all the decisions and planning is headed up by Goldsworthy whom I’m convinced has his own personal agenda that includes “hate Penarth”

  13. Steven says:

    What ever happened to that plastic surgeons house that he tore down? Can’t remember the road name? Dr Sid Guatum basement collapsed and the house was eventually torn down?

  14. Taxpayer says:

    It an eyesore.

  15. Mr happy says:

    I think it looks amazing , yes it looks modern that’s how we build new home not the old way that’s not cost affective
    Good luck to the local family hope you sort the investigation out from
    A happy member of penarth

    • standards are slipping says:

      I don’t think it looks ‘modern’ – it looks like any other house making itself apparent on a street of older properties where a ‘plot’ becomes ‘available’ and the architect hammers home the cliched naffness of Tudorbethan, copycat design.
      No point trying to emulate what’s already here, they tell the client. Let’s do something different…

  16. the Countess says:

    It’s the spec savers blokes house isn’t it

  17. Luca says:

    To all the whingers, moaning minnies and keyboard warriors – why do you only ever raise objections when something is complete? If you don’t like it, you have the chance to object at Planning Application stage. I’m not suggesting that the Planners will listen to you if you don’t have any valid Planning Policy objections. But the whining “I don’t like it” brigade is hardly raising any level of debate. You would probably perform equally as dismally if you did mange to scrawl something legible to the Vale Planning Office.

    • Hobbiton says:

      As a whinger, moaning minnie and keyboard warrior, I have learned there is no point objecting at any developmental stage.
      In the unlikely event I did mange [sic] to scrawl something legible to the ‘Vale Planning Office’, it is evident my concerns would be dismissed as ‘NIMBY-ism’, jealousy or some other variation of ‘to be ignored’.
      The clue to the inevitability of such an outcome lies in the fact such a building was ever considered ‘valid’ in a ‘conservation area’ in the first place.

  18. standards are slipping says:

    What the heck is going on?
    None of the detractors have been accused of “jealousy” or “nimbyism” yet.
    The pious upholders of Anything Goes need to pull their fingers out.

  19. Frank Evans says:

    A few supportive comments from those who have connections to this house maybe.
    It look awful (ly) the same as every other new square boxed design these days. Topped off with horrible glass.
    Broke planning law do pull the whole thing down

Comments are closed.